Quasi-criminal proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC require proof beyond doubt of willful injunction disobedience; appellate courts cannot reverse trial credibility findings absent perversity, especially ignoring interested witnesses and lack of independents.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition may be allowed and after setting aside the impugned order dated 23.11.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, in Civil Misc. Appeal No.49 of 2006, the petition filed by the respondent under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC may kindly be ordered to dismissed and justice be done.”

2. The petitioner has challenged judgment dated 23.11.2009, passed by the learned Appellate Court, in terms whereof, the appeal filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents, namely, Mansha Ram, under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code, was allowed.

3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents filed a petition under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code before the learned Trial Court alleging therein disobedience of an order passed by the learned Trial Court on 27.06.1994.

4. In terms of Annexure P-2, dated 30.08.2006, the application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court by returning the following findings:-

“It is alleged by the petitioner in his statement before the Court that on 27.6.1994 the respondents were restrained from interfering in any manner in the existing shop in possession of the applicant- petitioner as a tenant or from evicting him forcibly. However, respondents even after being duly served did not stop interfering ever the shop in possession of the petitioner. The respondents kept chizzling the Walls of the shop as well as damaged the roof of the shop. Finally, on 11.9.1994 the shop was manually demolished by the respondents. In his cross- examination, he has denied that he had net paid the rent of the said shop for the last 13 to 14 years; the shop was in dire need of repairs. He has also denied that he had taken away all his office articles from the said shop even before 11 September, 1954. Petitioner has asserted that en 8.9.1994, AW-3 Local Commissioner Shri K.C. Bhatia, Advocate had visited the shop and gave his report Ext. AW3/A and alse prepared plan. The said report of the Local Commissioner depicted that respondents had demolished the Wall up to the lintels there were cracks in the shop etc. He has also stated that respondents have demolished the lintel up to the wall of the shop of the plaintiff. AW-4 Manoher Lal has also stated that on 11.9.1994 he saw all the respondents manually demolishing the shop under the tenancy of plaintiff/petitioner. AW-5 Amin Chand had brought on record the copy Ext. Aw5/A which is a letter written by Executive Engineer to S.P., whereby it is stated that the shop in question has been demolished manually and had not fallen down due to natural reasons. These allegations on behalf of the petitioner have been denied in toto by the respondent Kamlesh Kumari appearing on behalf of the respondents, has stated that since 1983, petitioner had net paid the rent of the shop, as such, the shop was in dire need of repairs. In 1994, in the Month of September, the shop collapsed due to heavy rain. It is submitted by her that petitioner had already taken away a11 his office articles from the said shop and, as such, there was no reason to eject or dispossess him forcibly from the said shop. She has also stated that once the shop had fallen down the respondents had only colle